f what is often confused with
quality), or some such argument. This kind of selection is often seen as
resulting in higher quality, but is in reality quite arbitrary, even spurious.
Jan Velterop
On 29 Oct 2011, at 18:09, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On 2011-10-28, at 5:47 PM, Er
d downs). If
'green' speeds up that reform, great. But not by using dubious and disingenuous
arguments like "authors are giving away their papers", please.
Jan Velterop
On 6 Nov 2011, at 23:12, Stevan Harnad wrote:
On 2011-11-06, at 4:08 PM, Allen Kleiman wrote:
tive.
Jan Velterop
On 4 Jan 2012, at 04:09, Lee Giles wrote:
I would like to ask a counting question since all of this is based
on good counting
and a great deal of faith is placed on the the counters. Even the US
census
knows the issues with doing this and resort
so much more
valuable to science than OA?Â
Food for thought?
More:Â http://bit.ly/w7uBMG
Jan Velterop
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9
> -Original Message-
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On
> Behalf Of Jan Velterop
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:32 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: P
I agree with Tim. Doesn't the 'NC' in CC-BY-NC just mean "I can't make money
from it and I would resent it if you could" ?
Jan Velterop
        â â  ⢠⢠⢠ ⢠⢠⢠ â â
**********
Drs Johannes (Jan)
humanity to take in, when so desired.Â
It should â and in my judgment it will â be socially and professionally
unacceptable for any researcher who wishes to be taken seriously to keep his or
her published results behind barriers.Â
Jan Velterop
On 29 Mar 2012, at 02:47, Stevan Harnad wrote:
analyses.
Best,
Jan Velterop
On 26 Apr 2012, at 11:38, Sridhar Gutam wrote:
Dear All,
In the year 2009, when we launched the Open Access Journal of
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (OAJMAP) <http://www.oajmap.in> from
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Association of
Just a note to express my support and 100% agreement with Peter and Arthur.
Jan Velterop
On 28 Apr 2012, at 10:00, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Arthur Sale
wrote:
Stevan
I disagree with you in one regard. I agree that
orts
should be aimed at making the argument for OA strengthening the societal
relevance of science, an argument that any scientist with a healthy dose of
self-interest is bound to understand and take on board. Funders such as the
Wellcome Trust are already doing important work in that regard.
Jan
roviding peer access to research -- so it can be
> used, applied and built upon -- is also in the public
> interest -- if doing (and funding) research at all is...
>
> Stevan
>
> On 2012-04-28, at 10:05 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
>
>> Stevan sees the issue of providin
Just a note to express my support and 100% agreement with Peter and Arthur.
Jan Velterop
On 28 Apr 2012, at 10:00, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Arthur Sale
wrote:
Stevan
I disagree with you in one regard. I agree that
All very well, Andrew, but did it ever occur to you that when there is no wide
cultural or societal support for whatever law or mandate, more effort is
generally being spent on evasion than on compliance and enforcement turns out
to be like mopping up with the tap still running? If you insist on
Avoiding prescriptions for the means helps keep the focus on the goal and also
leaves the door open for imaginative ways of convincing researchers, funders
and institutions, and even of achieving more OA in possibly more effective ways.
Jan Velterop
On 1 May 2012, at 11:54, Stevan Harnad w
ndevelde
E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Jan Velterop
wrote:
I would simplify it further:
"Because Open Access (OA) maximises research
usage, impact a
he answer, their quality have to improve and that means
>> more resources are required.
>>
>> I don't know what the end result will be. No one can plan a disruptive
>> change. However, I have come to the view that site licenses cause the
>> stasis. Phasing out of p
Strict logic is not what we win the battle for open access with. Some celebrity
involvement is to be welcomed. On a visceral level the success of Wikipedia
(not a logical outcome at the outset on the basis of the premises) may well
influence the perception of open access.
Jan Velterop
On 2
Scholarship)
> http://www.openscholarship.org/jcms/j_6/accueil
>
>
>
> Le 2 mai 2012 à 12:47, Jan Velterop a écrit :
>
>> Strict logic is not what we win the battle for open access with. Some
>> celebrity involvement is to be welcomed. On a visceral level
On 2 May 2012, at 13:32, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> Andrew is so right (and the current UK government is showing as much good
> sense in turning to JW as they showed for many years in turning to RM).
>
> Wikipedia is based on the antithesis of peer review. Asking JW to help make
> sure peer-revie
On 2 May 2012, at 15:31, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On 2012-05-02, at 9:28 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
>
>> On 2 May 2012, at 13:32, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrew is so right (and the current UK government is showing as much good
>>> sense in turning
nsist on BOAI-compliant OA (CC-BY or CC-0) for all research articles,
including for self-archived articles. And if anything, we should insist on
institutional repositories to actually be searchable and accessible also for
text mining. Human-readable OA is a conditio sine qua non, but it is not
suffi
-compliant OA
('libre' in your lingo) should not be mandated.
Unreasonable? Perhaps.
George Bernard Shaw: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.&quo
I would favour doing away with both the terms 'libre OA' and 'gratis OA'. Open
Access suffices. It's the 'open' that says it all. Especially if it is made
clear that OA means BOAI-compliant OA in the context of scholarly research
literature.
Jan Velterop
On 9 Ma
On 9 May 2012, at 00:53, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
> Jan Velterop wrote:
>> The trouble with focussing on 'green', rather than on full
>> BOAI-compliant OA for research literature, is that it has become an a
>> priori concession and an end in itself. That only confuse
27;, without re-use rights, won't help either.
Jan
On 8 May 2012, at 22:25, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
>
>> 'Insist' here is shorthand for taking an approach similar to the one you are
>> taking re 'green'.
..@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
Â
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Jan Velterop
Sent: 09 May 2012 09:13
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Meaning of OA Libre
I would favour doing away with both th
and should be.
Jan
On 9 May 2012, at 11:37, Stevan Harnad wrote:
** Cross-Posted **
On 2012-05-09, at 4:12 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
I would favour doing away with both the terms 'libre OA' and
'gratis OA'.
Open Access suffices. It's the '
to the bOAI definition would do much
good.
Andras Holl
On Wed, 9 May 2012 06:37:55 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote
> ** Cross-Posted **
>
> On 2012-05-09, at 4:12 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
> I would favour doing away with both the
The real issue is to do with usage rights. Can any article that is presented as
being OA just be read with human eyes, or also be re-used and used for
text-mining? The answer in my view should be 'yes', re-use and text-mining, too,
whether the article is in a repository, a personal web site, or a p
ria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo. Â 80204 USA
(303) 556-5936
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu
Â
Â
Â
Â
From:Â goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org]Â On Behalf
Of Jan Velterop
Sent:Â Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:24 AM
To:Â Global Open Access List (S
class of researchers,
the ones who are in a position to read all the literature in their fields with
their own eyes.
Jan
On 9 May 2012, at 16:43, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2012, Jan Velterop wrote:
>
>> The real issue is to do with usage rights.
>
> Usage ri
.soros.org/openaccess, is often exceedingly slow and
therefore
difficult to consult if you don't have a lot of time).
Jan
On 9 May 2012, at 16:48, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jan Velterop
wrote:
Jeffrey,
All research articles in BMC journa
I might be convinced by his core argument, and quite possibly other people on
this list as well, if Stevan cum suis could come up with credible evidence that
in order to get universities and funders to mandate deposit in what they call
OA-repositories requires watering down OA and not sticking to w
Alicia,
Some publishers are often criticised, you're right, and I agree that they
shouldn't be for just being an established scholarly publisher. And I don't
think they are as often as you perhaps assume. It is the policies and business
models that are criticised rather than the publishers per se.
On 14 May 2012, at 23:59, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:
Hi all,
[cut]
Â
Jan â thank you for the constructive suggestion to make all the journal
material available with delayed open access (CC-BY, fully re-usable and
mine-able) after a reasonable embargo period. Why do you suppose it
On 15 May 2012, at 17:12, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
With due respect to Eric, I will disagree with at least the
devolution of the first two tasks
1. The selection of editors should come from scientific communities
themselves, not from commercial publishers. This is a goo
On 15 May 2012, at 19:57, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
Universities will never collaborate (third law)
So there you have it, the Third Law of Acadynamics. Anybody surprised that
private enterprise has stepped into the breach?
Another reason why I think that gold CC-BY will win out. PLoS-like
sonable
stipulation.
An OA policy should be as simple as "OA mandatory; CC-BY preferred; if CC-BY not
possible, then minimally Ocular Access" (Ocular Access: read-only, 'Gratis' Open
Access, human-readable OA, or whatever similar description of the idea.)
Jan Velterop
O
On 16 May 2012, at 13:42, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Jan Velterop
wrote:
What I don't understand, Steve, is your apparent
hostility to OA articles in hybrid journals. Whence this
hostility? Why '
ost of the material in
repositories could all be 'libre' OA.Â
Etc. etc.
Jean-Claude
--
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
Le mardi 15 mai 2012 à 18:47 +0100, Jan Velterop a écrit :
On 15
e' access seems completely out of
scope. So if this is the best example of a successful OA repository, Peter
Murray-Rust can be forgiven for getting the impression that compliance is
essentially zero, in terms of Open Access.
Jan Velterop
On 13 Jul 2012, at 00:11, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On
If ever one needed an argument in favour of 'gold' OA, here it is.
Jan
On 13 Jul 2012, at 09:48, brent...@ulg.ac.be wrote:
>
>
> Le 13 juil. 2012 à 09:32, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit :
>
>> What is the percentage of full-text ACS papers pubished by Liege which are
>> visible at time of public
So really, the only true deposited open access articles are published as
'gold'. At least that is the impression I get from this exchange.
Jan
On 13 Jul 2012, at 10:19, Kiley, Robert wrote:
> Peter
>
> These 1059 articles were deposited via the ACS “open choice” option.
>
> There will be ot
.
>
> The green road will have succeeded when researchers spontaneously turn to
> repositories to search the literature. We are very far from this and mandates
> are only one step in the right direction. The goal of this meeting is to
> build decisive momentum.
>
> Anyone o
not bring OA. Only mandates
> will. And the optimal mandate is ID/OA, even if it does not confer instant
> global OA.
Much of the frustration is self-inflicted by muddying the waters, where crystal
clear water is needed.
>
> First things first. Don't let the unreachable best g
Of definite interest to this list:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=a90BpPb9kk8
Jan
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Andrew,
Everybody understands that in real life one sometimes has to make concessions
when trying to reach an ideal. But it's quite another thing to elevate such
concessions to the status of a goal.
The story should be like this:
We are striving for immediate, full, unencumbered open access,
On 3 Aug 2012, at 03:08, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
>
>
> Jan Velterop wrote (on the liblicense list):
>
>> Indeed, we signed up to the BOAI, as did Stevan Harnad, and the
>> Initiative talked about two routes to OA, which have become known as
>> 'gold'
could then fill the gaps with their services,
helping academics with these things, possibly in the form of 'gold' OA journals.
Jan Velterop
On 7 Aug 2012, at 16:11, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Sally Morris
> wrote:
> We should no
Chris,
The nice thing about true open access articles (under a CC-BY licence) is that
they can be printed and distributed, even for a profit (CC-BY publishers are
not consumed by 'profit-spite'). This is not true for the so-called OA articles
which are under a Non-Commercial licence, of course,
archive.org/web/20010709143907/http://www.biomedcentral.com/.
Best,
Jan Velterop
On 7 Aug 2012, at 00:29, Omega Alpha | Open Access wrote:
> Greetings. Does anyone know who/when first used the phrase "open access" to
> refer to toll free publication and/or access to scholarly litera
It's a start. 27,995 or so to go.
Jan
On 9 Aug 2012, at 11:43, Laurent Romary wrote:
> Thanks. Are these all managed on their own?
> Laurent
>
> Le 9 août 2012 à 11:42, Bo-Christer Björk a écrit :
>
>> Good idea,
>>
>> Here are four such journals, all of which have been there since the 1990s:
No, 27,995 still to be converted :-)
Jan
On 9 Aug 2012, at 12:05, Laurent Romary wrote:
> So you know 27,995 which are working without any private publisher in the
> loop and no author/reader fee.
> Laurent
>
> Le 9 août 2012 à 11:55, Jan Velterop a écrit :
>
>> It
Heather,
Ever heard of FUD? This is it.
Jan Velterop
Sent from my iPad
On 17 Aug 2012, at 18:54, Heather Morrison wrote:
> Many in the open access movement consider CC-BY to be the very embodiment of
> the spirit of the Budapest Open Access Initiative - giving away all rights to
&
;more' OA (i.e.
CC-BY, © author, and deposited in an appropriate open repository) than many an
article in some OA journals in the DOAJ (which may well be only CC-BY-NC, ©
publisher, and not deposited).
Jan Velterop
On 20 Aug 2012, at 22:42, Heather Morrison wrote:
> Matt,
>
>
articles in a given
journal, he can only do that going forward
Impecunious authors who cannot afford the services of a publisher can always
deposit their articles – with a CC-BY licence – in an open repository and
invite peers to review and comment
etc
etc
Jan Velterop
On 21 Aug 2012, at 19:29
n the extremely unlikely event
of their CC-BY articles not being available anywhere, not even from Mendeley,
or LOCKKS, or national libraries, they could still deposit them. Scepticism
regarding the benefits of CC-BY is wholly unwarranted in the context of open
access.
Jan Velterop
On 22 Aug
t, more than 10 years ago,
precisely because "free open access" was – rightly – considered too vague and
ambiguous. I guess the ambiguity suits some peoples' purpose.
Jan Velterop
On 28 Aug 2012, at 10:26, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>
> Warning: I shall get shouted down for this post
hing
or repository offering Open Access, removing all clarity of purpose contained
in the original definition. The agenda seems to have changed from striving for
Open Access in any way possible, to undermining, come what may, the Open Access
that can be brought by the 'gold' route. A v
irst' approach with 'green' OA to reaching the OA goal
is a legitimate stance to take (whether or not I or anybody else agrees with
the idea); arbitrarily and unilaterally changing the goalposts – or the
definition of what OA should be – along the way is not.
Jan Velterop
On 29 Aug
Hear, hear!
Jan
On 26 Sep 2012, at 16:04, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote:
> This is avery good example of one constant flaw in Stevan Harnad's reasoning.
> It has to do with point 5.
>
> It may be true that the high-energy physics community would have achieved
> more for OA if it had put all of its
s towards good-willing OA publishers and even towards those, such
as funding bodies, who dare to take a position that doesn't include explicit
hostility to gold OA.
And what a waste it was.
Jan Velterop
On 7 Oct 2012, at 13:29, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Sa
Ad hominem? Ad strategem!
Jan
On 7 Oct 2012, at 17:39, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
>
> As is probably widely known by readers of this list, I do not too often
> disagree fundamentally with Stevan Harnad. There are exceptions. I disa
condition of acceptance (to be included in the repository or to
be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't like the author making
available the manuscript with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger rule or
simply refuse to publish the article.
Jan Velterop
>
>
> Fina
rom open access and reuse concerns.
The only thing I'm not clear about is who the "we all" are who'd have to agree
to launch this for Open Access week :-)
Jan Velterop
On 9 Oct 2012, at 22:28, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan V
ubject-repository-is-permitted/
>
> Everyone loves arXiv, but I'm not sure it provides any precedent or lead in
> this respect.
>
> Steve
>
> On 10 Oct 2012, at 12:15, Jan Velterop wrote:
>
>> Peter,
>>
>> It would simplify things a lot.
>>
nvoy impossible. The
destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the BOAI in December 2001. I
find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises where he regards the
course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the course of his ship. That is
misguided.
Jan Velterop
On 1
l of ultimately reaching libre.
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
>
>
> Message d'origine----
> De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop
> Date: mer. 10/10/2012 12:07
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum
ude
>
>
> Message d'origine
> De: goal-boun...@eprints.org de la part de Jan Velterop
> Date: mer. 10/10/2012 13:51
> À: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum; BOAI Forum
> Objet : [GOAL] Re: RE : Re: On the proposal
Alexandria in the 3rd
century BC, has been libraries.
You seem to have an extraordinary lack of any trust in the publishing and legal
system.
Jan Velterop
On 11 Oct 2012, at 02:32, Heather Morrison wrote:
> On 10-Oct-12, at 2:58 PM, David Prosser wrote:
>
> ...The simple fact is th
l the enhancements we can add to
> re-usable manuscripts.
This is particularly relevant once mined data can be reliably attributed, not
only to the author, but also to the journal from which they were mined. Several
developments are well underway in that regard: http://www.openphacts.org/ and
liant 'green'
OA. Advocating BOAI-compliant 'green' OA, emphatically yes. Mandating it, no.
(iii) I'm not aware of anybody advocating mandates for 'gold' OA. Examples,
please, if you have them. Preferences, yes. Mandates, no.
(iv) See (iii).
Jan Velterop
On 10 Oct 20
at is the the best I can do on your question. It is a tough question
> because each category of actors (researchers, librarians, publishers,
> administrators) will have a different take on it.
I agree with you on it being a tough question.
>
> Best,
>
> Jean-Claude
>
Be
the reformatting of manuscript
necessary for many a new submission (because to a different journal) of a
previously rejected article.
Who dares? eLife perhaps, by the time it starts charging? Wouldn't be the first
time the Wellcome Trust with their colleagues at HHMI and MPG turned out game
icles published. Or have any Impact Factor at all.
Jan Velterop
On 12 Oct 2012, at 16:30, ANDREW Theo wrote:
> Hi Ross and others,
>
> Apologies – friday afternoon gremlins have crept into our blogging platform
> breaking the link. Here’s a sanitised extract of the data:
>
es over. This leaves journals' peer-review standards and
> selectivity up to the peers -- and journal choice up to the authors -- where
> both belong.
>
> Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA journals was
> what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz
On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA journals was
> what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz and Jan Velterop had been lobbying for at
> the time
Stevan may think so, but that doesn't make it corr
d with
sub-optimal solutions just for reasons of expediency.
Jan
On 29 Oct 2012, at 10:34, Richard Poynder wrote:
>
> On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
>
> Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA journals was
> what (I think) BM
se who want it BioMed
> Central supports self-archiving by offering to help institutions create
> repositories for their researchers’ papers.
>
> Richard Poynder
>
>
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
> Jan Velterop
price. In
one case the price is lower quality of the resulting OA; in the other it is
money.
Jan Velterop
On 29 Oct 2012, at 13:18, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Richard Poynder
> wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
&
be tested against the
current situation before being considered still valid.
Jan Velterop
On 7 Nov 2012, at 10:17, Sally Morris wrote:
> It's along time ago now, but Alma Swan and Sheridan Brown surveyed nearly
> 11,000 scholarly authors for ALPSP in 1998/9 and received 3 218 replie
;t exist. It's just OA in the company of content
that's not OA, but under the same 'brand', which stands for a level of
credibility of the peer-review and publication practice. The value of brands is
often overrated, though.
Jan Velterop
On 8 Nov 2012, at 12:06, Steve Hitchco
sted analysis of, and
reasoning with, data and assertions found in the literature. Organisation of
the literature in the current prolific number of journals — and the concomitant
fragmentation it entails — will be more of a hindrance than a help.
Initiatives such as nanopublications (http://nanopu
Alma, the 60% of green journals without embargoes you mention, what percentage
of annual green published articles do they represent (not counting gold
articles, which are of course also green by definition)?
Best,
Jan
Johannes (Jan) J M Velterop
AQnowledge - Concept Web Alliance
M +44 7525 026
de 'green'.
I regard a Darwinian 'weeding' of non-credible journals (including those who
Beall classifies as 'predatory') a wholly realistic scenario. Authors
submitting to — and paying for — journals without duly checking the journals'
credentials are probably too gull
at means
that due to sensible self-censorship, any re-use is best avoided. That in turn
means that the article with a CC-BY-NC licence is not truly BOAI-compliant open
access, but merely 'ocular access' instead. Unsatisfactory for modern research
and scholarship.
Jan Velterop
On 29 Ja
In what way is it contradictory for a publisher to claim copyright (if it has
been transferred to the publishers) and then license it under a CC-BY licence?
Any legitimate copyright holder, be it the author or the publisher, can surely
license under whatever licence they choose?
Jan Velterop
Are there examples of such "subscription journals that make their online
version freely accessible online (immediately upon publication)."
Who would subscribe, and what would a subscription entail?
Jan Velterop
On 19 Apr 2013, at 05:16, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 20
y or Wiley InterScience user account:
login above and proceed to purchase the article.
New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.
No indication at all of it being a journal "that makes its online version
freely accessible online immediately upon publication".
Jan Ve
y clear,
> objective one (though it might well give rise to some emotions!): It means
> being paid twice for the same product.
>
> And that's precisely what happens with hybrid-Gold OA: The same publisher is
> paid twice for the very same article: once by subscribing institution
ility on the public internet,
permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or
link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as
data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial,
legal, or technical barriers oth
I have to admit, I only skim-read the article, so perhaps he explained his
choice and have I missed that passage. On the other hand, perhaps he chose open
access in order to reach the widest possible audience. Just like open access
advocates would. It may be his first (subconscious?) step on th
On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:05, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> Elsevier are the worst offender that I have investigated, followed by
> Springer who took all my Open Access images, badged them as (C)
> SpringerImages and offered them for resale at 60 USD per image. Just because
> OA is only 5% of your bu
x27; (crediting William Gunn for that
phrase), so I won't hold my breath.
Jan Velterop
On 10 Dec 2013, at 13:36, Sally Morris wrote:
> At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA conformists, let me say
> that – whatever ithe failings of his article – I thank Jeffrey Beall for
use the temporary course of tacking with the overall
course needed to reach the destination.
In the larger picture, OA itself is but a means, of course. To the goal of
optimal scholarly knowledge exchange. And so on, Russian doll like. But that's
a different discussion, I think
Jan Velte
l versions at the point of publication ('gold') don't need this
compromise, and are to be preferred.
Some more thoughts on this here:
http://theparachute.blogspot.nl/2013/12/lo-fun-and-hi-fun.html
Jan Velterop
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Stevan Harnad
> Subject: I
On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:12, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> There are two separate issues here.
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
> Elsevier's (or at least Tom Reller's) response is as expected, though it does
> show an apparent – mistaken IMO –
On 29 Dec 2013, at 01:18, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> (2) And once they become big and successful one is also struck by how the
> differences between the OA publishers and the subscription publishers shrink
> (both for for-profit OA publishers like Springer/BMC and not-for-profits like
> PLoS).
I
At least some articles with Microsoft Research affiliated authors are covered
under a CC-BY licence, so could be called true open access (BOAI-compliant OA).
Example:
http://www.plosone.org/article/authors/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0072200
Jan Velterop
On 21 Jan 2014, at 13:37
Sally,
Percentages, unfortunately, don't always mean much. I haven't read the Cox &
Cox report, but it would be interesting to know if the four largest publishers
– less than half a percent of publishers, yet together having a market share of
perhaps as much as two thirds of the scholarly liter
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
